How much does food influence health ?

[Dreamliner]

Answer: probably not much. Found this article and had an out-of-body experience. It was like reading my own article. Note the suggestive link between fear of dying and food fanaticism:

http://www.foodreference.com/html/article-food-health-711.html

[mastoidbone]

I would LOVE to disagree with you----but it is difficult. Aside from well know deficiencies from vitamins, certain amino acids---it is difficult to PROVE.
But even some of those assumptions are being questioned.

This guy ate meat and fish for 9 years---and did well.
http://www.mendosa.com/stefansson1.htm


I was LONG taught that high fiber diet would prevent western conditions like diverticulosis----well.....that might not be the case.....
http://www.gastroendonews.com/ViewArticle.aspx?d=In+the+News&d_id=187&i=July2011&i_id=748&a_id=17528


In fact, patients in the highest quartile of fiber intake, compared with those in the lowest quartile, had an increased prevalence ratio of 1.30 (95% confidence interval, 1.13-1.50; P<0.05).

“This association was dose-dependent,” Dr. Peery said. “With each increasing quartile you see increasing prevalence.”

Investigators also found that for patients with less than two diverticula, fiber did not play a role; however, in patients with high total dietary fiber intake, there was an increased prevalence of three or more diverticula. Fat and red meat intake and physical activity level had no association with diverticulosis.

[Dreamliner]

Add to that two recent studies that show people with high cholesterol living longer than people with low cholesterol!

[Dreamliner]

My father was slim, athletic and a non-smoker. He died of cancer at the age of 39.

His bother, my uncle, raised on the same diet - and having endured to the era of processed foods - is now 82.

[holloffamer]

My father was slim, athletic and a non-smoker. He died of cancer at the age of 39.

His bother, my uncle, raised on the same diet - and having endured to the era of processed foods - is now 82.

This is the irony sometimes. So it makes me think that there really is no assurance even if you are fit as a horse.

[Dreamliner]

This is the irony sometimes. So it makes me think that there really is no assurance even if you are fit as a horse.

That's all I'm saying: there are no assurances. Now, one may be wise to hedge their bets. But again, since there is no guarantee, why not at least eat the foods one truly enjoys ?

[Gatormb]

Went on a high fiber diet once. Fiber in the morning, afternoon and evening, Two months later I passed a wicker basket!

[tampajack1]

I believe that certain food intolerances or allergies cause a lot of auto-immune diseases. One website to look at is www.dogtorj.com.

[LeafUF]

Sure but are they common? And if you aren't allergic is there good reason to avoid certain foods?

[Dreamliner]

Yes, there are food sensitivities. Although I suspect there prevalence is exaggerated. Ex: probably no more than 6% of the population is actually gluten-sensitive.

What I (and I suspect the article writer) had in mind was the notion, "If I eat this food, I'll live longer. And if I eat this food, it could shorten my life." That kind of thing.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Well, all I know is that when I stay away from processed foods, I perform way better in the gym. It's very noticeable.

[Dreamliner]

Paleos I know eat processed foods. They can hardly avoid it. On the balance, I think processing is a good thing. I've also noted that:

(1) Americans are living longer than ever.

(2) Americans are eating more processed foods than ever before.

Therefore:

(3) Processed foods are the key to longevity.

Seriously, 'processed' has replaced 'boo!' as the term most used to frighten Americans.

[GuyWhiteyCorngood]

Paleos I know eat processed foods. They can hardly avoid it. On the balance, I think processing is a good thing. I've also noted that:

(1) Americans are living longer than ever.

(2) Americans are eating more processed foods than ever before.

Therefore:

(3) Processed foods are the key to longevity.

Seriously, 'processed' has replaced 'boo!' as the term most used to frighten Americans.

I'm doing a paleo challenge in my gym right now, and I'm being pretty strict with it. For the most part, I'm eating raw food vegan w/ some meat. I'm not going low carb at all. My fruit intake is pretty high. I'm not worrying about any macronutrient balances...I'm taking in plenty of coconut oil, too. Lots of green shakes, too.

When the paleo challenge is over, I'll try to stick with eating lots of raw foods, but beer and all its delicious gluten, will be back in the rotation.

[Dreamliner]

I'm doing a paleo challenge in my gym right now, and I'm being pretty strict with it. For the most part, I'm eating raw food vegan w/ some meat. I'm not going low carb at all. My fruit intake is pretty high. I'm not worrying about any macronutrient balances...I'm taking in plenty of coconut oil, too. Lots of green shakes, too.

When the paleo challenge is over, I'll try to stick with eating lots of raw foods, but beer and all its delicious gluten, will be back in the rotation.

:joecool: on the beer especially.

[Gatorstooth]

The comments in this thread leaves me shaking my head. The idea that the food you eat has no influence on your health is frankly.........dumb. It's like saying you can put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and it will run fine. Americans aren't living longer, we just have fewer Americans dying of disease because of better health care. Having an uncle who smoked and lived to be 82, while a fitness freak died in his 30's means nothing. Come on! This isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

A persons diet determines whether or not they have all the nutrients they need to grow and repair their various systems, and those requirements change as we age. It also controls the amount of inflammation we have. Inflammation causes a number of diseases like heart disease and cancer. Our diet controls our blood sugar levels which can lead to insulin resistance, weight gain in the torso, and ultimately diabetes. I can go on and on.

So don't fool yourself into thinking you can eat that double beef whooper with cheese and a large fries because you think it doesn't matter, because it does.

[Dreamliner]

The comments in this thread leaves me shaking my head. The idea that the food you eat has no influence on your health is frankly.........dumb. It's like saying you can put diesel fuel in a gasoline engine and it will run fine. Americans aren't living longer, we just have fewer Americans dying of disease because of better health care. Having an uncle who smoked and lived to be 82, while a fitness freak died in his 30's means nothing. Come on! This isn't rocket science, it's common sense.

A persons diet determines whether or not they have all the nutrients they need to grow and repair their various systems, and those requirements change as we age. It also controls the amount of inflammation we have. Inflammation causes a number of diseases like heart disease and cancer. Our diet controls our blood sugar levels which can lead to insulin resistance, weight gain in the torso, and ultimately diabetes. I can go on and on.

So don't fool yourself into thinking you can eat that double beef whooper with cheese and a large fries because you think it doesn't matter, because it does.

We just don't need anymore slovenly 'fuel' analogies, like yours. And we're trying to get away from this sort of unscientific hysteria.

Bear in mind that we're all going to die. YOU are going to die and there's nothing you can do about it.

[LeafUF]

Damn now I want some Burger King.

[Dreamliner]

Damn now I want some Burger King.

Don't do it! You'll DIE!!!

[LeafUF]

Oh wow good thing you caught me. Ill just get chinese instead.

[Gatorstooth]

We just don't need anymore slovenly 'fuel' analogies, like yours. And we're trying to get away from this sort of unscientific hysteria.

Bear in mind that we're all going to die. YOU are going to die and there's nothing you can do about it.

We? Who is "we?" Hey, I don't care if you junk food yourself into a coma, but you're "we're going to die anyway" attitude is just stupid. Food is the fuel that powers our body, and it's also the medicine that heals our body. Those are the scientific facts.
http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/hmn/w10/feature2.cfm
http://www.livestrong.com/article/436878-how-unhealthy-food-affects-running-performance/

[LeafUF]

So, uh, you didnt bother to look at the articles linked in any of the posts did ya tooth?

[Gatorstooth]

So, uh, you didnt bother to look at the articles linked in any of the posts did ya tooth?

I read the ones that didn't require me to register. No one is doubting that the food industry is perpetuating the so-called "food hysteria," and profiting by packaging unhealthy foods as healthy. I do question these notions that people who eat healthy are somehow fearful of death, and that a healthy diet isn't important. The OP's link even backs up what I'm saying. People eat healthy because they want to be healthy, and want to lead a productive and energetic life for as long as possible without having to deal with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Being a cancer survivor I can tell you that being a healthy person won't stop you from developing a cancer, but it makes it a heck of a lot easier to treat and recover from the treatment.

Imagine two men who die at 85. One of them dies in a nursing home as a result of congestive heart failure complicated by diabetes. The other dies from a heart attack out on the golf course. Your diet will usually determine which of those men you'll be.

[Dreamliner]

I read the ones that didn't require me to register. No one is doubting that the food industry is perpetuating the so-called "food hysteria," and profiting by packaging unhealthy foods as healthy. I do question these notions that people who eat healthy are somehow fearful of death, and that a healthy diet isn't important. The OP's link even backs up what I'm saying. People eat healthy because they want to be healthy, and want to lead a productive and energetic life for as long as possible without having to deal with chronic diseases like heart disease and diabetes. Being a cancer survivor I can tell you that being a healthy person won't stop you from developing a cancer, but it makes it a heck of a lot easier to treat and recover from the treatment.

Imagine two men who die at 85. One of them dies in a nursing home as a result of congestive heart failure complicated by diabetes. The other dies from a heart attack out on the golf course. Your diet will usually determine which of those men you'll be.

'Healthy vs. unhealthy' is a dubious concept. No study that I'm aware of points to any one food killing you, when you eat it, or any one food extending your life, if you eat it.

Regarding diabetes, you're obsessing over food choices when the real culprit appears to be food *amount.* Why do you dexterously ignore this ? Are you like the many Americans whose gratification is tied to being able to eat a certain amount of food ? In any case, I meet fat people, just about every week, who 'hunger' for the easy road to health, this or that particular food choice, which will impart health, irrespective of weight.

Again: you do know you're going to die, don't you ? It is entirely possible that the people whose food choices you bemoan, these people who eat fast food all the time (where are they ?), are going to outlive you.

Then who are you going to shake your fist out for being betrayed ?

[LeafUF]

So, am I to assume that you have some scientific evidence to back up this claim?

Many of the chronic diseases you are discussing are associated directly with obesity. I think we can agree that obesity is bad and not being obese is good. However, people are way too focused on food type when it comes to doing things to reduce the likelihood of being obese. When instead they should be focused on food amount.

Can you be "healthy" on just fast food? There is some evidence to that, just see the Fast Food Diet or Jared from Subway.

Can you be "healthy" eating just junk food? Yup, just look at that professor who did the Twinkie diet. He lost 27 pounds and improved a bunch of health markers. Because being overweight is bad for your health markers and losing weight is good for it no matter what you are eating. His conclusion, "there seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy."

And that does not even begin the debate of what exactly is eating healthy? Ask 5 people and I guarantee they will not be able to agree on what the definition of healthy eating is. So, with that said the only food that we can all agree is bad for you is too much.

[LeafUF]

I swear I wrote my post before I saw Dreams.

[Dreamliner]

Speaking of diabetes, the going advice to lose as little as 5-10% of bodyweight, to improve health markers, as taken a bit of a hit.

A recent study tracked obese diabetics who lost an average of 8% of their bodyweight over (I think) a year.

Outcome: their diabetes improved slightly. But there was no decrease in the incidence of heart attack or stroke. The supposition is then that obese people might need to raise their sights a bit in terms of weight loss.

[Gatorstooth]

'Healthy vs. unhealthy' is a dubious concept. No study that I'm aware of points to any one food killing you, when you eat it, or any one food extending your life, if you eat it.

Regarding diabetes, you're obsessing over food choices when the real culprit appears to be food *amount.* Why do you dexterously ignore this ? Are you like the many Americans whose gratification is tied to being able to eat a certain amount of food ? In any case, I meet fat people, just about every week, who 'hunger' for the easy road to health, this or that particular food choice, which will impart health, irrespective of weight.

Again: you do know you're going to die, don't you ? It is entirely possible that the people whose food choices you bemoan, these people who eat fast food all the time (where are they ?), are going to outlive you.

Then who are you going to shake your fist out for being betrayed ?

What I learned from your post is that you didn't read anything I posted, and that you take testimonials as scientific evidence to make your point. Your point that people who eat a high fat, high sodium diet will out live me is laughable unless I get hit by a car before they keel over from a heart attack or stroke.

[Gatorstooth]

So, am I to assume that you have some scientific evidence to back up this claim?

Many of the chronic diseases you are discussing are associated directly with obesity. I think we can agree that obesity is bad and not being obese is good. However, people are way too focused on food type when it comes to doing things to reduce the likelihood of being obese. When instead they should be focused on food amount.

Can you be "healthy" on just fast food? There is some evidence to that, just see the Fast Food Diet or Jared from Subway.

Can you be "healthy" eating just junk food? Yup, just look at that professor who did the Twinkie diet. He lost 27 pounds and improved a bunch of health markers. Because being overweight is bad for your health markers and losing weight is good for it no matter what you are eating. His conclusion, "there seems to be a disconnect between eating healthy and being healthy."

And that does not even begin the debate of what exactly is eating healthy? Ask 5 people and I guarantee they will not be able to agree on what the definition of healthy eating is. So, with that said the only food that we can all agree is bad for you is too much.

I agree that obesity is the culprit but you have to look at the reasons for the obesity. More often than not people who eat fast food are obese than people who don't eat fast food. A person who eats healthy can also eat more food than a person who eats fast food. Further, a person who consumes complex carbohydrates has more readily available fuel along with vitamins, minerals, and fiber than with processed foods.

As far as the Twinkie guy goes, there's no arguing the First Law of Thermodynamics. Anyone can eat a stick if butter dipped in sugar drizzled with chocolate and lose weight if they maintain a caloric deficit. But why do it when you can eat more nutrition packed food, never be hungry, and still maintain the same caloric deficit? That's my point.

[Dreamliner]

What I learned from your post is that you didn't read anything I posted, and that you take testimonials as scientific evidence to make your point. Your point that people who eat a high fat, high sodium diet will out live me is laughable unless I get hit by a car before they keel over from a heart attack or stroke.

I read every word of your scaremongering, which is to say I read all your posts.

And for your scaremongering, I pronounce a curse on you: For your bravado and effete food snobbery, may you live in fear of being out-lived by people who enjoy burgers, fries and donuts now and again.

People who were confident that they would outlive the general population, because of stringent attention to diet, but who died young:

*Originator of South Beach Diet

*Author of The Blood Pressure Cure

*Author of the Pritiken lifestyle.

*Editor of Prevention Magazine.

*Author of You Can Stay Well.

*Author of The 120 Year Diet.

Note: they were all sneering at the junk-foodists ... right up until they died.

[Gatorstooth]

I read every word of your scaremongering, which is to say I read all your posts.

And for your scaremongering, I pronounce a curse on you: For your bravado and effete food snobbery, may you live in fear of being out-lived by people who enjoy burgers, fries and donuts now and again.

People who were confident that they would outlive the general population, because of stringent attention to diet, but who died young:

*Originator of South Beach Diet

*Author of The Blood Pressure Cure

*Author of the Pritiken lifestyle.

*Editor of Prevention Magazine.

*Author of You Can Stay Well.

*Author of The 120 Year Diet.

Note: they were all sneering at the junk-foodists ... right up until they died.

I'm sorry but I'm going to back out of this thread of yours. Your paradoxical thinking is starting to make my head hurt and it's not worth the effort. I do think I'm going to enjoy this forum however.

[mbgator]

You have to throw heredity out the window. We're not talking about how long you will live. All things being equal , with genetics. Please tell me that you guys aren't saying that someone that eats sugar and canned ravioli is going to be the same phisically as someone that eats healthy.

[Dreamliner]

I'm sorry but I'm going to back out of this thread of yours. Your paradoxical thinking is starting to make my head hurt and it's not worth the effort. I do think I'm going to enjoy this forum however.

You brought nothing but bromides. You displayed no knowledge of actual research. You leave with only your false bravado.

[Dreamliner]

You have to throw heredity out the window. We're not talking about how long you will live. All things being equal , with genetics. Please tell me that you guys aren't saying that someone that eats sugar and canned ravioli is going to be the same phisically as someone that eats healthy.

With all due respect, I wonder if you've been paying any attention. "healthy eating" is a dubious concept. What does it mean ?

[LeafUF]

Did someone say donut? Hello postworkout meal.

[UFNut]

You have to throw heredity out the window. We're not talking about how long you will live. All things being equal , with genetics. Please tell me that you guys aren't saying that someone that eats sugar and canned ravioli is going to be the same phisically as someone that eats healthy.

At first I think you have to define what you mean by "healthy". I would define healthy as eating a diet that is evolutionarily derived for the human race. This means lean protein sources, lots of fresh vegetables and fruits (including potatoes imho). This would out dairy & grains (even complex ones like oatmeal).

Now to refine my definition I would say its still "healthy" to eat the following defined diet 75% of the time, but allow yourself to eat rice/bread/dairy, etc in small portions each day with each meal. I also would still deem it healthy if you eat a donut at work on monday and a burrito from taco bell on thursday, while stuffing down some tostitos with nacho dip on saturday washed down with beer, so long as week by week your consuming a nice balance of foods in general during the week.

On the other hand, I wouldn't consider it healthy to eat a dozen donuts every day for the rest of your life....but I think that's pushing the definition of unhealthy a little too far to the left. You could probably maintain decent health on subway due to the array of foods you put in between the buns of death :). Also Pizza with a nice array of toppings isn't so bad, since there is some sort of balance....but food devoid of proteins/fats & basic vitamins as a sole food source is very very unhealthy. I'm pretty sure you don't do that, and until you do I think its reckless to promote it as healthy.

This is of course assuming you start with a baseline level of good general health. The definition of what is healthy breaks down considerably as you add health problems to the mix, and this is where I think Dream's/Leaf's views are not only incorrect but dangerous....

Now that said I do agree with you that most people worry too much about what the food is, but I don't agree with you that you shouldn't concern yourself at all with what is in the food.

Instead of abandoning nutritional science, think you need to sift through it more and not just concentrate on the parts you like.

[Gatorstooth]

At first I think you have to define what you mean by "healthy". I would define healthy as eating a diet that is evolutionarily derived for the human race. This means lean protein sources, lots of fresh vegetables and fruits (including potatoes imho). This would out dairy & grains (even complex ones like oatmeal).

Now to refine my definition I would say its still "healthy" to eat the following defined diet 75% of the time, but allow yourself to eat rice/bread/dairy, etc in small portions each day with each meal. I also would still deem it healthy if you eat a donut at work on monday and a burrito from taco bell on thursday, while stuffing down some tostitos with nacho dip on saturday washed down with beer, so long as week by week your consuming a nice balance of foods in general during the week.

On the other hand, I wouldn't consider it healthy to eat a dozen donuts every day for the rest of your life....but I think that's pushing the definition of unhealthy a little too far to the left. You could probably maintain decent health on subway due to the array of foods you put in between the buns of death :). Also Pizza with a nice array of toppings isn't so bad, since there is some sort of balance....but food devoid of proteins/fats & basic vitamins as a sole food source is very very unhealthy. I'm pretty sure you don't do that, and until you do I think its reckless to promote it as healthy.

This is of course assuming you start with a baseline level of good general health. The definition of what is healthy breaks down considerably as you add health problems to the mix, and this is where I think Dream's/Leaf's views are not only incorrect but dangerous....

Now that said I do agree with you that most people worry too much about what the food is, but I don't agree with you that you shouldn't concern yourself at all with what is in the food.

Instead of abandoning nutritional science, think you need to sift through it more and not just concentrate on the parts you like.

Thank you and you are spot on. I've been taught by integrated physicians (UF med school) that if 90% of your diet is quality food then the other 10% can be crap which goes along nicely with what you're saying.

[Gatorstooth]

You brought nothing but bromides. You displayed no knowledge of actual research. You leave with only your false bravado.

You're ideas are ignorant void of any valid research. You argue in circles and people trying to follow your convoluted rants are wasting their time. Trust me, when I see your posts my first thoughts will be "nothing of interest with this guy." and I'll move on to something of value.

[LeafUF]

Hey nut my views are actually not that far off from yours at all except for some slight disagreements about the evolutionary stuff and avoiding grain or dairy in the absence of a diagnosed allergy. If my posts on here come off more extreme than that it is only in response to the over the top vilification of certain types of food.

The thing is the definition of what is healthy and what is not is constantly changing while the one constant is that overconsumption is a bad idea. Your definition of healthy would be disputed by many and they would have science to back them up as well.

We could write out a list of foods right now and find no consensus on whether or not each is healthy without cherry picking the studies that support our own belief system. And trust me that is what this argument really comes down to, emotions and attachment to some food based belief system.

[kkg8r]

This thread is making me dizzy. But I love to blow sh*t up. What if I ate baked chicken veggies and a glass of milk for every meal,but turns out my chicken and milk are pumped with hormones?

[LeafUF]

This thread is making me dizzy. But I love to blow sh*t up. What if I ate baked chicken veggies and a glass of milk for every meal,but turns out my chicken and milk are pumped with hormones?

Haha. You are awesome. That is all.

[UFNut]

^^ valid, but you could consume chicken & milk that weren't pumped with hormones. There is also the question of whether you consider the hormones to be bad. As for the milk, I'd say you should switch it out for some healthy fresh brewed green tea :). (though as far as I'm concerned so long as you aren't drinking soda, you're already one step up).

[UFNut]

damn I'm hungry now.....thanks to you guys I'm thinking about all my unhealthy options ;P.

[Dreamliner]

This is what I ate today:

Breakfast: just coffee with artificial sweetener and half-and-half.

Lunch: whole bag of stir-fried garlic chicken and iced tea. Then followed with double-decker PB&J sandwich (on whole grain of course, got to eat healthy!), a banana and Coke Zero.

Dinner: ground beef with sauteed onions, baked potato with some sort of artificial butter laced with all manner of preservatives and can of green beans.

Probably going to have a couple of scoops of Moose Tracks ice cream in a bit.

Oh, forgot the two beers. The main thing is that I try to get as many preservatives as I can. I gather that preservatives are good for us. After all, we're eating a lot of them and we're living longer than ever. Hence, the name 'preservatives.'

[UFNut]

Actually sounds like a pretty decent meal set to me, especially given how much you work out. Not sure it falls in line with your rhetoric that it doesn't matter what you eat though. Its obvious you do care, no matter what you say. Odd, that I think the whole wheat bread is probably the least healthy thing you had to eat though ;P.

Hard to tell if you're being facetious with that last paragraph. Pretty similar to what I had, except I ate breakfast today, though I don't always. I feel better when I exercise if I've eaten something earlier in the day.

Maybe someone else is arguing with you about eating a little margarine with your potato, but its not me :). I agree its not healthy to constantly micromanage what you eat...I just think its laughable that the overall composition of your daily eating habits outside of calories doesn't matter. Just like I think its unhealthy to eat nothing but donuts, I think its equally unhealthy (and practically impossible) to eat nothing but romaine lettuce. Its better than dying from starvation, but your still gonna be pretty damn hungry as it takes a lot of lettuce to rack up 2k+ calories.

[kkg8r]

Haha. You are awesome. That is all.

You'll get repped for that all day! ;)

[Dreamliner]

Actually sounds like a pretty decent meal set to me, especially given how much you work out. Not sure it falls in line with your rhetoric that it doesn't matter what you eat though. Its obvious you do care, no matter what you say. Odd, that I think the whole wheat bread is probably the least healthy thing you had to eat though ;P.

Hard to tell if you're being facetious with that last paragraph. Pretty similar to what I had, except I ate breakfast today, though I don't always. I feel better when I exercise if I've eaten something earlier in the day.

Maybe someone else is arguing with you about eating a little margarine with your potato, but its not me :). I agree its not healthy to constantly micromanage what you eat...I just think its laughable that the overall composition of your daily eating habits outside of calories doesn't matter. Just like I think its unhealthy to eat nothing but donuts, I think its equally unhealthy (and practically impossible) to eat nothing but romaine lettuce. Its better than dying from starvation, but your still gonna be pretty damn hungry as it takes a lot of lettuce to rack up 2k+ calories.

The whole wheat thing was tongue-in-cheek. Of course the paleos would say that grains are killing me. I'd say no, but suspect that grains are overrated.

FYI: my food choices are predicated on three factors: (1) taste (2) texture (3) convenience.

And isn't the donuts thing a bit of a strawman ? I mean, who eats nothing but donuts ? Indeed, who eats primarily fast food ? Of all the 72-hour food journals I've collected from clients, none have reflected eating habits remotely close to that. Yet, all ranged from overweight to obese, and some suffered fairly profound health issues.

For people who desire to decrease their mortality risks, I recommend that they choose their parents wisely, don't smoke, control their weight, get a little exercise, laugh, hug, manage stress and above all, stop worrying how long they'll live.

Seriously, I'm 56 now. It would be nice to imagine that I've only lived half my life. And then I look in the mirror, in the morning, and think ... hmm, maybe 86 wouldn't be so bad.

[UFNut]

The whole wheat thing was tongue-in-cheek. Of course the paleos would say that grains are killing me. I'd say no, but suspect that grains are overrated.

FYI: my food choices are predicated on three factors: (1) taste (2) texture (3) convenience.

And isn't the donuts thing a bit of a strawman ? I mean, who eats nothing but donuts ? Indeed, who eats primarily fast food ? Of all the 72-hour food journals I've collected from clients, none have reflected eating habits remotely close to that. Yet, all ranged from overweight to obese, and some suffered fairly profound health issues.

For people who desire to decrease their mortality risks, I recommend that they choose their parents wisely, don't smoke, control their weight, get a little exercise, laugh, hug, manage stress and above all, stop worrying how long they'll live.

Seriously, I'm 56 now. It would be nice to imagine that I've only lived half my life. And then I look in the mirror, in the morning, and think ... hmm, maybe 86 wouldn't be so bad.

If you read one of the hack diets (atkins, southbeach, etc. -- note I don't include Paleo, cause I think it is actually rather logical, though I can't figure out what their problem with potatoes is, seems like a Paleo food to me...), they think the typical american eats a donuts for breakfast, mcdonalds for lunch, and pizza for dinner (the idea of which makes me want to throw the book through my window, no one does that....well not no one, but it's certainly not typical). I simply stated that, cause I thought the premise we were going on here, was that what you eat doesn't matter, and that calories were the end-all....and if that's the case, you should be able to subsist off nothing but donuts, but you can't, not for long anyway, and you're going to feel like shit.

I know someone who tried to lose weight eating nothing but salads (bro-science I know)...he felt like shit, but he didn't die. This is because you can't just eat some subset of healthy foods either. One needs a balance of nutritional elements to live and feel good while living.

I simply think if you establish a good habit of eating a healthy balanced assortment of foods (note the difference between saying an assortment of healthy foods), that you no longer have to worry about counting calories anymore, because you can just naturally adjust what you eat from week to week. Frees you up to spend more time on the Babes thread, or if you're lucky enough to live near a nice beach with bikini-clad attractive women then frees you up to spend more time there. Assuming you eat this nice balanced diet and perform moderate amounts of exercise, you'll look good while you do it, and that's the important thing right?

[Dreamliner]

If you read one of the hack diets (atkins, southbeach, etc. -- note I don't include Paleo, cause I think it is actually rather logical, though I can't figure out what their problem with potatoes is, seems like a Paleo food to me...), they think the typical american eats a donuts for breakfast, mcdonalds for lunch, and pizza for dinner (the idea of which makes me want to throw the book through my window, no one does that....well not no one, but it's certainly not typical). I simply stated that, cause I thought the premise we were going on here, was that what you eat doesn't matter, and that calories were the end-all....and if that's the case, you should be able to subsist off nothing but donuts, but you can't, not for long anyway, and you're going to feel like shit.

I know someone who tried to lose weight eating nothing but salads (bro-science I know)...he felt like shit, but he didn't die. This is because you can't just eat some subset of healthy foods either. One needs a balance of nutritional elements to live and feel good while living.

I simply think if you establish a good habit of eating a healthy balanced assortment of foods (note the difference between saying an assortment of healthy foods), that you no longer have to worry about counting calories anymore, because you can just naturally adjust what you eat from week to week. Frees you up to spend more time on the Babes thread, or if you're lucky enough to live near a nice beach with bikini-clad attractive women then frees you up to spend more time there. Assuming you eat this nice balanced diet and perform moderate amounts of exercise, you'll look good while you do it, and that's the important thing right?

Two points:

(1) I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the distinction between "You can eat nothing but donuts and lose weight", which is true, and, "You can eat nothing but donuts, interminably', and expect to feel good, which is probably not true.

(2) But since no one ever does that, it's a far cry from the sort of hysteria that fosters, as you put it, micro-managing.

BTW, I have little concern that my clients aren't getting the requisite macros, vitamins and minerals, and that's BEFORE I begin to work with them. Their problem coming in is too many calories. So. 'balance' does not help them. 'Less' is what they need to internalize. It is often the case that I can recommend that they eat just the way they're currently eating, just less of it.

The article is posted to quell fear of eating, that is, fear of eating this or that food, or not getting this or that food ... and consequently being wracked with disease and dying. I just strongly suspect that that's no way to go through life, especially since we know we're all going to die.

[Dreamliner]

Foods I have eaten this week:

burger, fries, pizza, donuts, cookie, candy, enriched white rice, breadsticks

Am I going to die ? Yes, yes I am.

[UFNut]

Two points:

(1) I appreciate the opportunity to clarify the distinction between "You can eat nothing but donuts and lose weight", which is true, and, "You can eat nothing but donuts, interminably', and expect to feel good, which is probably not true.

(2) But since no one ever does that, it's a far cry from the sort of hysteria that fosters, as you put it, micro-managing.

BTW, I have little concern that my clients aren't getting the requisite macros, vitamins and minerals, and that's BEFORE I begin to work with them. Their problem coming in is too many calories. So. 'balance' does not help them. 'Less' is what they need to internalize. It is often the case that I can recommend that they eat just the way they're currently eating, just less of it.

The article is posted to quell fear of eating, that is, fear of eating this or that food, or not getting this or that food ... and consequently being wracked with disease and dying. I just strongly suspect that that's no way to go through life, especially since we know we're all going to die.

Think I understand you now. So I gather you're saying that, you are trying to quell the notion that all you have to do is eat balanced and you lose weight without concern to how much you eat (or how active you are, which certainly helps). So given that they are eating primarily decent foods (not necessarily great, but decent) they simply need to eat less of it. No such thing as super foods, or whatever they call things like omega-3, etc. I'd say this is primarily true, but I think I'd prefer if my clients (if I had them) were to stop consuming things that made this process difficult, like sodas, and ridiculous calorie expresso drinks & smoothies. Some people discount this sort of caloric intake, when they shouldn't. I notice you drink zero calorie beverages for the most part so likely think this is a valid concern as well. I do notice you don't mention your water intake, but likely assume you consider that to be very important for weight loss and health in general, especially if you are utilizing weight training (or, sigh...cardio) for weight control and/or muscle gains. Not to mention sleeeeep.

On the other hand you'd think that if someone were eating a decent diet and they were gaining weight, the first logical thought would be, must need to eat a little less, and/or step up the exercise. But common sense doesn't seem to be very common these days, I guess.

Then again, in my best "not so fast my friend" impression, I think that better dietary choices in some places will help keep your clients from overeating in the first place, by being more satisfied by the meals they're eating, as surely you wouldn't disagree a big juicy steak with equal calories to a couple slices of pizza will make you feel fuller. Though I do understand how hard it is to convince people and it may just be easier to say "eat less", but then, I think it must be difficult to get them to do that either.

Either way I think your advice to them is good, now that I think I understand what you're saying. I am curious though, what would you say is the percentage of people who say they are following your advice but obviously are not (i.e. not losing weight). Or are they mostly honest about it if they've been "cheating". Just curious.

[Dreamliner]

Think I understand you now. So I gather you're saying that, you are trying to quell the notion that all you have to do is eat balanced and you lose weight without concern to how much you eat (or how active you are, which certainly helps). So given that they are eating primarily decent foods (not necessarily great, but decent) they simply need to eat less of it. No such thing as super foods, or whatever they call things like omega-3, etc. I'd say this is primarily true, but I think I'd prefer if my clients (if I had them) were to stop consuming things that made this process difficult, like sodas, and ridiculous calorie expresso drinks & smoothies. Some people discount this sort of caloric intake, when they shouldn't. I notice you drink zero calorie beverages for the most part so likely think this is a valid concern as well. I do notice you don't mention your water intake, but likely assume you consider that to be very important for weight loss and health in general, especially if you are utilizing weight training (or, sigh...cardio) for weight control and/or muscle gains. Not to mention sleeeeep.

On the other hand you'd think that if someone were eating a decent diet and they were gaining weight, the first logical thought would be, must need to eat a little less, and/or step up the exercise. But common sense doesn't seem to be very common these days, I guess.

Then again, in my best "not so fast my friend" impression, I think that better dietary choices in some places will help keep your clients from overeating in the first place, by being more satisfied by the meals they're eating, as surely you wouldn't disagree a big juicy steak with equal calories to a couple slices of pizza will make you feel fuller. Though I do understand how hard it is to convince people and it may just be easier to say "eat less", but then, I think it must be difficult to get them to do that either.

Either way I think your advice to them is good, now that I think I understand what you're saying. I am curious though, what would you say is the percentage of people who say they are following your advice but obviously are not (i.e. not losing weight). Or are they mostly honest about it if they've been "cheating". Just curious.

You pretty much nailed it. Now, I take a nuanced approach regarding 'better choices.' Yes, we know that protein tends to afford better satiety for many folks. However, here's my thing: I very much want my clients to eat the foods they enjoy, literally zero restrictions. Therefore, I invite them to embrace hunger pangs as they are transient and do not signal an actual biological need for nourishment.

You see, I'm digging my heels in a bit on this one point. I see people going overboard, in their anxieties, and don't want them to squander the opportunity to gain mastery over food, so as to allow them to lose weight eating any of the foods they enjoy. And why not ? Why not now while they're wanting to lose weight ? Eventually they going to eat them anyway.

I counsel my clients not to start at the beginning but rather 'plan for the end.' That is, I invite them to pretend that they've already lost their weight. I then ask them to imagine how they got there, was it by depriving themselves the foods they enjoy ? Was it by engaging in forms of exercise they are not likely to continue long-term ?

I'm quite strong on this point because I want them to plan for weight-loss (and maintenance) in the context of the overwhelming probability that they will simply gain the weight back. Sustainability is key. And sustainability points to minimum effective dosage, as small a change as is necessary and no larger.

Now, to another point of yours, I do have clients who are obviously not helping themselves coming in. And occasionally I have the good fortune to find an 'easy red button' in their food journals.

For example, one of my obese clients was getting 8-9 cans of sugared soda a day, no kidding. BUT, I didn't look at that and think 'unhealthy.' Rather, I looked at 8-9 sodas and thought '1,000 calories.' So, I had no problem negotiating her down to two cans a day and asking her to cultivate a habit of savoring them as here 'special treat.'

Finally, not many of my clients 'cheat' after I've gotten hold of them. There have been notable exceptions, but one thing I use to my advantage is their own acknowledgent that they've been caught red-handed coming in. This is to say that they either underestimate food intake on their food journals, or they outright lie about it. So, they get some rather straight (albeit diplomatic) talk coming in.

I had on client who complained about not being able to lose weight. Her food journal had her getting 800 to 900 calories a day. I knew something was amiss, so as I probed a bit, I also talked about Energy Balance Theory and how it works for everyone, and how it's unforgiving, and why we ought to be happy about that ... and finally she allowed as to how she'd left out a foot-long philly cheesesteak sandwich.

"But it was only one thing!", she whined. :laugh:

[UFNut]

NOTE: I had noticed already your response but thought since we seemed mostly in agreement I'd leave it alone :). (in reference to your post on the THFGT board)

I shudder to think what my body would look like if I were actually consuming 800-900 calories per day though, lol. For my weight and activity that'd be over 2k calorie deficit probably, so I'd probably need the cheesesteak :).

[Dreamliner]

There is actually a designation for ladies like this. In the modern parlance they are "too little eaters." That is, they complain that they eat far to little not to be losing weight. I call them "whiners" for short.

A recent study of too little eaters showed them estimating their daily caloric intake at 1,082. Calories. Their average calorie consumption: 2,081